Politics Forum.org | PoFoThe BBC has described us as 'more addictive than nicotine', come share your thoughts instead of your facebook pictures!2019-05-02T20:03:39+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/feed.php?f=72019-05-02T20:03:39+01:002019-05-02T20:03:39+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176462&p=15002217#p15002217I. HOPE as an Acronym.

HierarchyEveryone within the spectrum of the new conservative movements, which range roughly from new-right to NRx, believe that hierarchy is natural and that it can be a good thing. As such, it is a cornerstone of these ideologies.

OrderBroader than hierarchy, members of these new conservative movements believe that order is superior to the many forms of anarchist ideology, which seems to make up an increasing share of far-leftist thought. There are a few anarcho-capitalists present in the new-right spectrum but they seem to be in the minority, they also already have their own well-defined ideology and so I am not including them here.

PeaceMembers of the new-right are usually anti-war when war is defined as interventionism. The most obvious recent example of this is the situation in Syria, where older conservatives are in favor of interventionism in the country while younger conservatives are against it.

Formal ExchangeWe are against globalism (as an ideology) which we define as an attempt to erase indigenous cultures and traditions. We are not against globalization (as trade) nor are we against cultural exchanges in of itself. We don't believe that "cultural appropriation" exists. We do believe that most exchanges must be done in a formalized setting. A contemporary example of this is how President Trump wants asylum refugees to apply at ports of call, not to apply for asylum only after they get caught by immigration enforcement; this is the kind of idea that I assume we can all agree with. Paraphrasing Mencius Moldbug, a broad conception of formal exchange can include his definition of "formalism" which states that the official reality of political power should match its actual reality. It can also encompass the general desire for controlled borders, the defense of social formalities within society etc. We believe that being formal is both efficient and a virtue.

Conclusion re: HOPEI believe that all of the beliefs of the new right, as well as most alt-right and NRx theories are compatible with the concepts listed in the above acronym. Obviously not all of the ideas can be summarized therein but many of them can be. Notably, the pun here and the use of the word "hope" is not an accident -- it seems inevitable that leftist degenerates will win some significant victories in the short term. It may sound dramatic but we will need to hold onto hope if we are going to persevere.

II. Didactic Materialism as a Methodology.

Younger conservatives have discovered that traditional and religious arguments do not make it very far within the diverse, sacrilegious and troll-infested forums of the internet. The trend has been to move towards materialist arguments, usually employing some form of materialist teleology because regardless of what religious beliefs or traditions a given conservative may or may not hold themselves, it is for better or worse only a materialist arguments that can be free of distracting associations and tangents.

Even though new right argumentation could often be classified as materialist, younger conservatives are not Marxists and they are not arguing as dialectical materialists. Most younger conservatives believe that Marxism has failed by its own terms; that social classes in the west have been supplanted by economic classes and that conditions are now too different from the 19th century for dialectical materialist arguments to be relevant. As such, they make materialist arguments without being dialectical materialists or western-style communists.

The new right employs a unique and new form of materialist argumentation. Their arguments are oriented towards what they believe are constructive and instructive ends. Hence the word "didactic" is employed along with the term materialist. A didactic materialist (a term that I believe describes the most common forms of argumentation employed by younger, internet-savvy conservatives) employs materialist arguments in a way that is intended to teach, particularly when having moral instruction as an ulterior motive (i.e., the definition of "didactic").

III. Some Examples of Didactic Materialist Arguments Commonly Employed by the New Right.

(1) The Legitimacy of Lineage Presumption.

A common argument when engaging with "SJWs" who want "all white people to die" or whatever is to point towards the fundamental legitimacy of a commonly held desire, wherein a person instinctively wants to invest in the success of their own offspring or other relatives. Adherents of the new right philosophies do not necessarily view this desire as an imperative; we also respect it when a person feels as if they have a higher calling that might delay or circumvent having a family. What differentiates us from the far left in this regard is that we don't demand it of people as they seem to do when they are attempting to justify their desire for white people to die out, why someone shouldn't have children for the planet etc. The presumptive legitimacy of caring for your own bloodline or extended family, even if it is merely in a materialistic and genetic sense, is always treated as a legitimate desire if someone chooses to have it. This has been a consistently effective argument for the new right and will likely continue to be because there is simply no debating against it from a perspective of rational materialism.

(2) The Reproducibility Crisis.

Liberal colleges are telling us a lot of things that we don't agree with and can often easily argue against. At the same time, many of the experimental results coming out of western colleges in the areas of the social sciences are proving to be unreproducible. The problem is so bad that a culture of dishonesty is arguably spreading into the hard sciences as well. For the first time in perhaps hundreds of years, scientists in places like China are beating western scientists to the punch when it comes to producing new technological advancements, which is what science has presumably been about in the modern era; to try and produce some kind of useful advancement before anyone else can, so that we might profit from it. It is our presumption that right now, western colleges are almost universally biased in favor of social liberalism and this is negatively impacting their results, not only in the social sciences but also in the "hard" sciences. If their agenda is not stopped the west will fall behind technologically and socially because they are not trying to uncover the truths of the universe, they are not even trying to make a buck, they are merely virtue signaling or faking evidence to support things that they wish were real.

(3) "Wikipedia is Garbage."

It is almost a rite of passage or a gold medal by now in the internet Olympics, wherein someone wins an argument against someone who is involved in the Wikipedia project by citing Wikipedia and in response that person (who in our case, is usually a leftist) goes and changes Wikipedia so that they can declare themselves the winner. When someone is on the internet, they can read a Wikipedia article on (for example) Aristotle and proceed to troll someone who has actually read Aristotle for a week by pretending to be dense. Having an internet connection and typing in "wikipedia" does not make someone educated. The public may not yet be completely familiar with this Wikipedia phenomenon. Ultimately, a person needs to either be more educated on a subject than Wikipedia or they need to take the argument down to a level of fundamental level that essentially undercuts Wikipedia (what we might call common sense or, as I have been arguing here, a didactic form of materialism).

(4) "I'm a Gay/Black/Trans/Muslim/Furry Conservative."

A somewhat less popular idea is that modern conservatism vs. liberalism is less about philosophy and ideology right now, more about someone's physical and social position in life. It's been noted that people who go to the gym and become stronger (they get that "swollen" look) are more likely to become "far-right extremists" after they've succeed in becoming a member of the "swolletariat". In other words, when a person is physically stronger and socially more successful, they are more likely to value self-reliance and freedom of expression. When a person is less self-reliant and less socially successful they are more likely to value charity and censorship. Although the implications of this are many, it may explain phenomenon such as that of the homosexual conservative. When conservatism was more about race, religion and tradition, a homosexual (or whatever) conservative would have arguably been a contradiction. Now that conservatism (and liberalism as well) is arguably more about personal outlook than it is about philosophies and yet-unproven economic theories, phenomenon like the homosexual conservative may no longer be a contradiction. One issue we have is that people closer to the NRx or Dark Enlightenment spectrum are much less likely to be interested in working with gay, Muslim, trans, furry etc. conservatives than the 4chan and T_D "autist" new right crowds are. The former still mostly reject these people, the latter embrace them and may even be proud to have them.

(5) Bateman's Principle.

Nota bene that the Wikipedia article on this subject has been mauled almost beyond recognition, yet it can still be a useful example. Bateman's principle provides a foundational materialist argument in favor of more traditional gender roles in society and occasionally also serves as a defense of traditionalism in this area. A basic definition of the principle is that females typically invest more energy into the rearing of a species' offspring because it is the female that produces eggs and usually will also gestate or care for them. Eggs are expensive and often involve more investment, sperm is cheap. It is also the case female that a female can almost always be certain about paternity, whereas from an evolutionary perspective there is no individual advantage if a male were to always take care of his own offspring because he can usually not be 100% certain about his paternity. Many observations about the social interactions between men and women can be extrapolated from this material fact; it is cheaper to produce sperm than it is to produce and gestate eggs, one healthy male can theoretically inseminate an almost unlimited number of females etc. These principles can be used to explain many things about human culture and the relevant differences between the sexes, even in an environment where traditional and religious dialogues have been rejected.

A popular example of Bateman's Principle in science is the aptly-named phenomenon of "penis fencing", a term that describes the reproductive method of a species of tapeworm. This species of tapeworm is naturally hermaphroditic. When two of these tapeworms meet, they attack each other with their penises. Whichever tapeworm loses the "fencing match" is pierced by the other tapeworm's penis and is injected with sperm. In this way, the more physically fit tapeworm acts as a male while the less physically fit tapeworm acts as a female. Although tapeworms are compartively simple creatures, this is perhaps the clearest example of Bateman's Principle to be found in nature: the fitter tapeworm is free to go on and possible inseminate a large number of other tapeworms, literally fighting with his penis until "he" either dies or becomes another tapeworm's woman.

(6) Don't Virtue Signal.

Virtue should not be expressed for personal or political gain because that is not real virtue. Real virtue includes a willingness to state unpopular facts when and where it may be appropriate.​The radicalization of millennials in college, which I feel created a lost generation, has basically corrupted the Democratic party's voter base so that no matter what, they cannot be civilly viable in the future.

IV. Proposed Forms for Further Didactic Materialist Arguments.

(1) The Lowest Common Denominator Fallacy.

Many western leftists use what I will call the "lowest common denominator" fallacy when dividing people into different interest groups. Someone who is hostile towards sluts is a mysogynist because apparently, all women are sluts. Someone who wants stricter punishments for felons is racist towards blacks because apparently, all blacks are felons (taken from a CNN headline). Someone who wants a more pro-active policy against terrorists is an Islamophobe because apparently, all Muslims are terrorists. In California, the punishment for knowingly infecting someone else with HIV was reduced from a felony with equivalence to murder, down to a misdemeanor because the law was "homophobic"; apparently all homosexuals want to give other homosexuals AIDS. Whatever their reasons may be, the left seems to be emotionally invested in defining every group by their lowest common denominator and this makes their dialogue regressive, anti-social and materialistically impotent when they are acting within the confines of the law.

Although I've attempted to expand upon this idea in other writings with some mixed success, I strongly believe that allowing this kind of argument, which I view as inherently fallacious, has a fundamentally degenerative effect upon society and debate. I would in short urge people to try and use the highest common denominator for any identifiable group and not the lowest common denominator. If a subject individual cannot be analogized to the highest common denominator at all then they should not benefit from group affiliation; they are just a problematic individual. This is essentially because we want society and people to become better, not worse and we don't believe that defining each and every group by its worst members is the path towards improvement.

(2) Subconscious Bias Goes Well Beyond Racism.

Far leftists of the AntiFA variety apparently believe that they are the most tolerant people around and that anyone who is not as tolerant as they should be punched in the face. This is of a startling example of subconscious bias; it should be presumed that even when we are talking about something like toleration of diversity, a human being's subconscious mind is capable of classifying people as tolerant or intolerant based upon what is socially/politically useful to them as an individual. A person who argues for an action as a change from the norm, even in the name of something like tolerance, should have the burden of proof in explaining why their proposed change is rational and unbiased. If they can't do that they cannot reasonably expect other people to become their actors.

There is a large amount of material evidence which suggests that most people, perhaps even all people are subconsciously incapable of completely shedding their personal bias. There is no reason to presume that this does not apply to liberals and their talking points as much as it does conservatives.

(3) The Hearsay Evidence Standard vs. Political Correctness.

Political correctness was originally a euphemism for lying for personal gain; now it is sometimes treated like an ethical standard. This can be awkward since the very words used in the phrase say something about what it originally meant. Most Americans are against political correctness. An appropriate standard for what is "admissible" in debate would be something like the hearsay evidence standard (no "anonymous sources") and not whether something is politically correct. The left essentially uses a "politically correct" evidence standard -- if it sounds PC or furthers a PC agenda then it is admissible, even if it is an anonymous source. The right uses something closer to the hearsay evidence standard, which might be simplified to mean that anonymous sources are not appropriate. Another way to put this is that material evidence is always better than immaterial evidence, or evidence such as "I heard a person say this although I can't produce that person" which also extends to dubiously reproducible university studies that are sometimes chains of hearsay.

(4) Rights as Objective Values.

I've argued that rights do not really exist; they are merely concepts that make laws easier to understand. But there are also other, more subtle roles that rights play. At the risk of sounding like a bad internet version of Sprengler, it seems to be the case that when a group of people agree upon what they believe rights are, such as when they agree upon a bill of rights or a constitution, they are "constituting" the standards by which their mutual society will function and declaring what ethical norms the citizens are expected to aspire towards. A group that values and attempts to follow agreed upon objective values possesses a form of group consciousness, one that exists above their individual subjective viewpoints; a group that considers their own subjective viewpoints to be the only truth is not the same as this. A group of subjectivists is merely a potentially fickle mob run by the tyranny of the majority. To tie this into the concept of didactic materialism, rights can be discussed according to their material effects.

V. Conclusion.

Just as dialectical materialism provided a framework for the debates that fueled communism, it's my hope that the new conservative movements can develop a reliable rhetorical method or vehicle for promoting their own agendas. The truth is that the conclusions to be drawn from materialism have changed since the 19th century, when Marx and Engels shocked the world. Maybe it is time for the new right movements to shake things up. This may already be happening. Although we aren't dialectical materialists, I think that we may be didactic materialists and that if we can hold onto our "HOPE" we or our descendants will some day be the leaders of our countries.​

]]>2019-04-20T03:03:51+01:002019-04-20T03:03:51+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000109#p15000109SSDR wrote:@SolarCross, Incorrect. They want you to think this way so that you don't want to rebel against the capitalist elites.

]]>2019-04-20T03:03:16+01:002019-04-20T03:03:16+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000108#p15000108@SolarCross, Incorrect. They want you to think this way so that you don't want to rebel against the capitalist elites.

]]>2019-04-20T02:47:27+01:002019-04-20T02:47:27+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000107#p15000107Statistics: Posted by SolarCross — 20 Apr 2019 02:47
]]>2019-04-20T02:35:17+01:002019-04-20T02:35:17+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000106#p15000106@Red_Army, The term "Marxism" is a right wing social construct created by capitalists to make any stance of true progress look bad. The term "Marxism" also makes a supporter of Marx look like a worshiper of him, and no human should be worshiped. The term "Marxism" shows favouritism to Marx himself, which alone promotes a social hierarchy.

A true socialist does not call himself a "Marxist." A true socialist may or may not claim that they can use the education and the advanced knowledge of Marx as a tool closer to true liberation of the masses.

]]>2019-04-20T02:31:50+01:002019-04-20T02:31:50+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000105#p15000105@SolarCross, That statement is incomprehensible. Thus making it useless.

]]>2019-04-19T14:04:51+01:002019-04-19T14:04:51+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000052#p15000052Socialism, all of it, is nothing more than the shadow cast by Christianity before the Sun of Science. If Christianity melts before the blaze then so too its shadow will vanish.

]]>2019-04-19T11:50:19+01:002019-04-19T11:50:19+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000033#p15000033Sivad wrote:That would be hard to do considering that it has radically transformed Western society over the brief span of a few generations. The speed and scale of the revolution is unprecedented in human history. That's why all the older wingnuts are freaking out, the change really has been just that drastic. That's not to say that it's all bad, I'm happy with a lot of it, but the institutional power that has been displayed through the process is something that none of us should really be comfortable with.

There has been a lot of change but the marxbots were not the cause of hardly any of them. The marxoids are given credit for the sex lib, but that started happening on the back of more reliable contraceptions and the invention of penicilin. Marxists had nothing to do with that. They opportunistically ride on trends, they don't cause them. You are giving the flea the credit for being a mighty bear on the basis of a proboscis full of bear blood.

Sivad wrote:Not even remotely, this was done on an industrial scale and the techniques employed were highly sophisticated. Public relations and culture creation have been developed into a science that the average person can barely understand let alone conduct.

PR lol. That's their great power? That would explain how trivial they are if that is all they got.

Sivad wrote:The Christians didn't upend the fundamental roles and values of society, they just overlaid their mythology while keeping the core roles and values intact.

The core roles and values were upended, it is just that after 2000 years of pervasive Christianity those core values have seeped so deep we have them all internalised. The core values of pagans before Christianity was the worship of power and prowess. Pride and greed are virtues! Christianity rotted that all away and made them vices. For the northern pagans being a priest was a woman's job, too girly for men, but Christianity made it a man's job for which women were too dirty to perform.

You aren't aware just how much the slant of your own world view rests on 2000 years of Christianity. The whole of socialism is just an unthinking atavism of Christian values.

]]>2019-04-19T08:38:44+01:002019-04-19T08:38:44+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000020#p15000020In the 1960s and the 1970s he became known as the preeminent theorist of the New Left and the student movements of West Germany, France, and the United States; some consider him the "father of the New Left".

Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in US government service for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency) where he criticized the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the book Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (1958). After his studies, in the 1960s and the 1970s he became known as the preeminent theorist of the New Left and the student movements of West Germany, France, and the United States; some consider him the "father of the New Left".

During World War II, Marcuse first worked for the US Office of War Information (OWI) on anti-Nazi propaganda projects. In 1943, he transferred to the Research and Analysis Branch of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Directed by the Harvard historian William L. Langer, the Research and Analysis Branch was in fact the biggest American research institution in the first half of the twentieth century. At its zenith between 1943 and 1945, it comprised over twelve hundred employees, four hundred of whom were stationed abroad. In many respects, it was the site where post–World War II American social science was born, with protégés of some of the most esteemed American university professors, as well as a large contingent of European intellectual émigrés, in its ranks.

These men comprised the "theoretical brain trust" of the American war machine, which, according to its founder, William J. Donovan, would function as a "final clearinghouse" for the secret services—that is, as a structure that, although not engaged in determining war strategy or tactics, would be able to assemble, organize, analyze, and filter the immense flow of military information directed toward Washington, thanks to the unique capacity of the specialists on hand to interpret the relevant sources.[11]

In March 1943, Marcuse joined his fellow Frankfurt School scholar Franz Neumann in R & A's Central European Section as senior analyst and rapidly established himself as "the leading analyst on Germany.[12]

After the dissolution of the OSS in 1945, Marcuse was employed by the US Department of State as head of the Central European section, retiring after the death of his first wife in 1951.

In the post-war period, Marcuse rejected the theory of class struggle and the Marxist concern with labor, instead claiming, according to Leszek Kołakowski, that since "all questions of material existence have been solved, moral commands and prohibitions are no longer relevant." He regarded the realization of man's erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity, which inspired the utopias of Jerry Rubin and others.[15]

Marcuse's critiques of capitalist society (especially his 1955 synthesis of Marx and Sigmund Freud, Eros and Civilization, and his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man) resonated with the concerns of the student movement in the 1960s. Because of his willingness to speak at student protests and his essay Repressive Tolerance (1965),[9] Marcuse soon became known in the media as "Father of the New Left."[9][16] Contending that the students of the sixties were not waiting for the publication of his work to act,[16] Marcuse brushed the media's branding of him as "Father of the New Left" aside lightly,[16] saying "It would have been better to call me not the father, but the grandfather, of the New Left."[16] His work heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies. He had many speaking engagements in the US and Western Bloc in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance", in which he claimed capitalist democracies can have totalitarian aspects, has been criticized by conservatives.[21] Marcuse argues that genuine tolerance does not permit support for "repression", since doing so ensures that marginalized voices will remain unheard. He characterizes tolerance of repressive speech as "inauthentic". Instead, he advocates a form of tolerance that is intolerant of repressive (namely right-wing) political movements:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School (1977)

iframe

In this program with world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee, the late philosopher and radical political theorist Herbert Marcuse explains how the so-called Frankfurt School reevaluated Marxism when world economic crisis failed to destroy capitalism as predicted by Marx. He also analyzes the philosophical roots of the student rebellions of the sixties.

]]>2019-04-19T05:00:19+01:002019-04-19T05:00:19+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=15000001#p15000001SolarCross wrote:It is a real movement but I wouldn't overestimate its power.

That would be hard to do considering that it has radically transformed Western society over the brief span of a few generations. The speed and scale of the revolution is unprecedented in human history. That's why all the older wingnuts are freaking out, the change really has been just that drastic. That's not to say that it's all bad, I'm happy with a lot of it, but the institutional power that has been displayed through the process is something that none of us should really be comfortable with.

Arguably everybody with an opinion and an agenda is a social engineer.

Not even remotely, this was done on an industrial scale and the techniques employed were highly sophisticated. Public relations and culture creation have been developed into a science that the average person can barely understand let alone conduct.

In perspective probably the most successful social engineers on the face of the planet were / are the Christians.

The Christians didn't upend the fundamental roles and values of society, they just overlaid their mythology while keeping the core roles and values intact.

]]>2019-04-19T12:12:31+01:002019-04-19T03:59:23+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=14999989#p14999989Sivad wrote:It is something of a misnomer but the term does refer to a real movement, it's not just a "conspiracy theory". And it is scary how a relatively small clique of intellectual elites can manipulate culture on such a grand scale, that is reminiscent of the cultural engineering undertaken in totalitarian societies.

What the wingnuts should be focusing on are the power structures that allow for this kind of thing to happen, that's the real problem here. But we all know the wingnuts are just lamenting their loss of control over those structures, they don't want to get rid of them, they just want to retake power.

It is a real movement but I wouldn't overestimate its power. Arguably everybody with an opinion and an agenda is a social engineer. It isn't really a new thing or exclusive to crazy totalitarians.

In perspective probably the most successful social engineers on the face of the planet were / are the Christians. Even today in this "godless age" a full quarter of the world, over 2 billion people, call themselves Christian. That is some epic pull which utterly dwarfs that of a handful of crazy marxoids. The christians have been doing it for 2000 years and I reckon they'll, like it or not, get another 2000 years. The marxoids are about done, I don't see them getting even another decade before they go the way of the dodo.

]]>2019-04-19T02:55:11+01:002019-04-19T02:55:11+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=14999982#p14999982Red_Army wrote:The thing is anyone can use dialectics. Marx himself took it from Hegel, but calling it Marxism makes it sound scarier and is easier to demonize I guess.

It is something of a misnomer but the term does refer to a real movement, it's not just a "conspiracy theory". And it is scary how a relatively small clique of intellectual elites can manipulate culture on such a grand scale, that is reminiscent of the cultural engineering undertaken in totalitarian societies.

What the wingnuts should be focusing on are the power structures that allow for this kind of thing to happen, that's the real problem here. But we all know the wingnuts are just lamenting their loss of control over those structures, they don't want to get rid of them, they just want to retake power.

]]>2019-04-19T02:33:17+01:002019-04-19T02:33:17+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=14999979#p14999979Yes Virginia [Dare], There Is A “Cultural Marxism”

In other words, we are to believe that people who speak about “cultural Marxism” are bigots trying to turn the clock back to the 1930s and 1940s, when generic fascists and European nationalists were free to kill Jews and other marginalized groups.

What is under attack, we are told, is the attempt by truly democratic governments and enlightened political elites to accommodate diverse cultures and lifestyles. This humane effort is being smeared as “cultural Marxism”—particularly when those engaged in this activity present a properly critical view of the racist, homophobic bourgeois societies that existed before the present reforms.

Those on the other side of this question are equally engaged. But, unlike their opponents, they don’t enjoy the effusive support of public administrators, educators, and the media.

The critics of “cultural Marxism” are targeting what they see as the intellectual roots of the cultural pollution that has overwhelmed their civilization and onetime-intact communities. The roots of this force, these critics argue, go back to the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, which was organized in interwar Germany, and to the influence its adherents exercised, especially in exile in the US after 1935.

Exponents of what the Frankfurt School called “critical theory”— like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Erich Fromm—were considered by orthodox Marxists to be fake or ersatz Marxists.

[...]

Still and all, the Frankfurt School, and especially its second generation as represented by the fervent “anti-fascist” Jürgen Habermas, has been far more interested in social engineering than in government ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange—the classic definition of socialism. From The Authoritarian Personality, edited by Adorno and his collaborator Max Horkheimer and brought out in 1950 by the American Jewish Committee (then and now funders of Commentary), to the repeated attempts by Habermas and his fervent followers to make German education politically useful to the anti-national Left, the Frankfurt School has focused on “anti-fascist” attitudes and behavioral patterns. Whether this can be extracted from Communist practice, or from Marx’s materialist view of class and history, are open questions.

But whatever the case, Frankfurt School-intellectuals rallied to Lenin’s Russia and later sympathized variously with the Communist DDR , were close to, if not always members of, the German Communist Party, and traced their work back to Marxist concepts. In short, they were social reformers in a hurry who also claimed to be Marxists.

I would however note that we’ve allowed things to happen that go well beyond anything that the founding generation of the Frankfurt School might have wanted. To my knowledge the original members never called for gay marriage or for handing over Western countries to hostile non-Westerners. Nor did they exhibit the loathing for ethnic national identities that has become characteristic of the multicultural Left (and the Respectable Right).

In my memoirs Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers, I recall Herbert Marcuse’s perplexed reaction to ardent feminists in his class as they expounded their sexual liberationist views. He may have been a Stalinist but he was not a total maniac. Although chaos had to be unleashed to destroy a repressive capitalist society, Marcuse thought (at least before he went out to California and became dotty) that something would have to be put in the place of what had been subverted, and that something would require social order.

There was also a right wing of the Frankfurt School, with which I once identified myself. Those who stood within that tradition were anything but “cultural Marxists,” for example Max Horkheimer, one of the cofounders of the Frankfurt School, who later in life became a staunch anti-Communist and anti-egalitarian. Whereas the mainstream Frankfurt School critics fired away at repressive bourgeois institutions like the nuclear family, the mavericks on the right attacked Enlightenment rationalism and impersonal bureaucracies—what I have called “the managerial state.”

There were furthermore sources that could be located in the masters which served to justify this deviation from the beaten track. In Dialektik der Aufklärung (1943) [PDF] Horkheimer and Adorno call attention to the bridge leading from rationalist reforms and system-building to the modern total state. Adorno comes back to this theme in Minima Moralia (1974), a work in which he levels a critique against totalizing visions of the modern world.

[...]

Is it possible, however, to talk about “cultural Marxism” as a purely descriptive term? Does “cultural Marxism” describe in a neutral enough fashion the movement of ideas that came out of the Frankfurt School and which has gained a powerful hold on Western countries?

In my book, The Strange Death of Marxism, I argued that these ideas established themselves as leftist programs and progressive rhetoric throughout Western Europe, Canada, and the US before the fall of the Soviet empire. They evolved into a form of leftist radicalism that could coexist with consumer societies and mixed economies, because they focused on culture and society much more than they did the economy. Frankfurt School ideas have encouraged a war without quarter against bourgeois institutions and national identities—but that war does not necessarily require far-reaching change in the structure of the economy.

Thus the GOP complaint against Obama, that he’s really a “socialist,” misses a larger point. His administrative and judicial appointments strongly suggest this black leftist president has allied himself with social radicals who can fairly be described as “cultural Marxists”.

[...]

Ironically, the term “cultural Marxist” had served the same function of abuse much earlier. As I noted above, in the interwar period, the Communists went after the Frankfurt School mercilessly for their lifestyle radicalism and avant-garde fashions, denouncing them (not without reason) as bourgeois decadents. The Communists insisted that these “critical theorists”, whatever they were doing, were not teaching Marx’s scientific theory of socialism.

Little did either group of critics suspect how successful the object of their attacks would soon become in taking over Western societies, through educational, social and political institutions

[...]

It is hard for me to imagine that the founders of the Institute, when they began their enterprise in 1923, would have objected to being called “cultural Marxists”. They defined themselves as social-cultural critics and theorists who had been influenced by Marxism. Why would “cultural Marxist” be an inaccurate way of characterizing their identity or vocation—before that term acquired a pejorative sense?

Similarly, it seems to me that we entirely justified in describing leftist vigilante groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC—$PLC to VDARE.com) as “cultural Marxist”. They may or not have views on government control of the economy, but they are unmistakably totalitarian in their drive to suppress and destroy deviationists from the party line on race, gender, “discrimination” etc.

Paul Gottfried is an American paleoconservative philosopher, historian, and columnist. He is a former Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, as well as a Guggenheim recipient. He is currently H. L. Mencken Club President.

Is there such a thing as "cultural Marxism"? If so, what is it? And what was the Frankfurt School, and what was it trying to accomplish? Paul Gottfried, who holds a Ph.D. in history from Yale and has written extensively on these subjects, joins me to get to the bottom of it all.

]]>2019-04-18T19:24:09+01:002019-04-18T19:24:09+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=14999938#p14999938Rich wrote:2 A group of ideologies that while inspired or related to Marxism have replaced the focus on class with a focus on race, gender, sexuality, Islam etc.

The unifying Marxist element is that everyone's identity and position in life are determined by their group membership rather than their individual choices, and by how much power the groups they belong to wield. There is also no such thing as a struggle for liberty, justice, or truth, only for group power. Thus, being anti-white is not racist because whites as a group have more power than non-whites. Being anti-male is not sexist because males as a group have more power than females. As the article in the OP observed, when lone loonies carry out terror attacks incomprehensibly citing right wing ideas or intellectuals as their inspiration, that is somehow a reflection of those ideas and intellectuals; but when Muslim or leftist governments carry out genocidal or economically and socially catastrophic policies logically citing Muslim or leftist ideas as their inspiration, that is somehow not a reflection of Muslim or leftist ideas.

]]>2019-04-17T15:34:28+01:002019-04-17T15:34:28+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=14999719#p14999719Thatsnumberwang wrote:Has anyone come across this term in real life or browsing online?

You can't move in this forum, or the UK version, without some far right person blaming something on "Cultural Marxism". For example, a certain poster blamed a graph showing wider acceptance of same sex relations on "the Cultural Marxist school of falsification". Read on from there to enjoy the full rant.

]]>2019-04-17T09:48:23+01:002019-04-17T09:48:23+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176410&p=14999687#p149996871 A strategy of conventional Marxists that focuses on culture. Gramsci's long war of position.

2 A group of ideologies that while inspired or related to Marxism have replaced the focus on class with a focus on race, gender, sexuality, Islam etc.

3 An organic mass phenomenon growing out of the mass expansions of further and higher education in the arts and social sciences. These people naturally want their studies to be part of some noble moral struggle.

The first rule of Cultural Marxism is, there is no such thing as Cultural Marxism. Recognition of Cultural Marxism has nothing absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. Cultural Marxists are quite open about what they are doing. They are generally quite open about their goals and agenda. The only thing they deny is that they are Cultural Marxists.

In the 1960s the Frankfurt School of sociology bridged a gap between the works of Freud and Marx, describing a psychological class struggle which stretches beyond crude economics to manifest through culture and consumption habits. It was the class war of the classroom, its lens set on formulated artistic taste rather than economic waste. This ‘Cultural Marxism’ – a term never used by its alleged architects Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer – became an antisemitic conspiracy theory about left-wing Jews wishing to subvert the white race: a new age Judeo-Bolshevism.

This myth metastasised so widely that in 1991 a former MI6 officer accused Theodor Adorno of creating and directing the rise of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in conjunction with the social science think-tank the Tavistock Institute. His aim, according to the conspiracy theory, was to provoke a sexual and cultural revolution to undermine the traditions of western civilisation, which as a Jew and a leftist Adorno must despise according to hard-right gospel. Adorno never actually worked with the Tavistock Institute, and of the Beatles he remarked, in his trademark vitriolic fashion, that their music is ‘something that is retarded in terms of its own objective content’.

Cultural Marxism’s re-emergence into the lexicon of the internet-plagued 21st century was inevitable. From the darkest alt-right forums it permeated the mainstream after Anders Breivik made a central theme of his manifesto. Just 8 years after the event – an attack so vast that one in four Norwegians know someone involved personally – its vocabulary has managed to sneak into the governments of both Britain and Australia.

In March, the British MP Suella Braverman told a Westminster conservative conference that ‘as Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism’. This incident was conceivably a mistake: Braverman is a woman of colour and a former HuffPo columnist – hardly a prime suspect for far-right radicalisation. Damningly, however, it came at the end of a year when both Roger Scruton and Toby Young were both expelled from the party after their obsession with the conspiracy theory was revealed.

In October 2018 the Australian Senator Fraser Anning posted on Facebook that ‘Cultural Marxism and communism is [sic]being peddled in our universities’. It was shared by over 12,000 people. Less than 6 months later an Australian man slaughtered 50 Muslims in Christchurch, citing both ‘Cultural Marxism’ and ‘White Genocide’ in South Africa – another myth which Anning preached to a crowd of over 1,000 people in Brisbane in March 2018. He later claimed that Muslim immigration into Oceania was actually responsible for the atrocity in Christchurch and remains in the Australian Senate to this day.

In the US two quite separate branches of the right have fallen down this antisemitic rabbit hole. The libertarian and former Republican nominee Ron Paul posted an image straight from 4Chan in his blog post ‘You’ve probably heard of ‘Cultural Marxism,’ but do you know what it means?’ Anyone who is unfortunate enough to have spent an afternoon browsing the recesses of any Chan image board immediately recognises the images of each racial stereotype: a hooked-nose Jewish man and a large-lipped, ape-faced African man punch Uncle Sam with an arm which bears the hammer and sickle.

In August 2017 a group of high-level national security advisors were sacked for co-authoring a memo which claimed that President Trump is facing adversity for providing ‘an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative’. The Gab posts of Robert Bowers, an-alt rightist who committed the deadliest attack on Jews in American history in the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue, echo these same concerns about a Cultural Marxist infestation of American culture which aims to replace the white race by promoting mass-migration and ‘degeneracy’ in place of traditional family values.

In the case of Braverman, it’s quite likely that she accidentally landed on tropes by combining two words and expressing something completely unintentional. One cannot deny, however, that we are witnessing an unprecedented adoption of 4Chan ‘memes’ about cultural subversion into the lexicon of mainstream conservatism across the Anglosphere, which disturbingly feeds into or at the very least parrots the rhetoric of white supremacist terrorists.

It doesn’t help that the curators of this new discourse in the right-wing press remain both employed and ,in most cases, more successful than ever. The columnist Melanie Phillips still writes for the Daily Mail and still appears on primetime BBC political programming despite her work being cited several times in Anders Breivik’s ‘A European Declaration of Independence’. The Spectator has hit record subscribers in reward for them publishing their golden boy Douglas Murray every week, whose ‘The Strange Death of Europe’ is like the Moby Dick of the alt-right.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that nobody is taking this seriously as we drift from one Christchurch to another.

]]>2019-04-09T19:08:21+01:002019-04-09T19:08:21+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998313#p14998313Victoribus Spolia wrote:I answered the question adequately, you asked a question that involved voting and conscription, etc. I support neither of these for anyone and so its not a gender specific issue in my mind.

If you thought I believed otherwise, then you misunderstand my views.

My point was about being excluded from society, or at least, from the places of power in society.

The argument was that women were not allowed to vote because they were also excluded from military service.

In both cases, there is a unilateral decision to keep a group from accessing power. The people excluded from power (in this case, women) are logically going to want to change that. Out of sheer self interest, if nothing else, feminism will come about as a reaction to these policies.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

You think I should allow anyone to do my electrical work so long as they want to, regardless of qualification?

The weird assumption you are adding to this question is that being a woman makes you dangerously unqualified for military activity and voting, the same way an untrained person would be if they tried to do electrical work.

Are you saying someone has the right to endanger themselves by breaching someone else's desire to voluntarily disassociate? If not, I don't see what your objection is to my argument and examples.

If I don't want someone who is not qualified to do electrical work to risk electrocution by doing work on my house, even if they "want" to, I don't see how anyone's rights are being violated nor do I see how anyone was being disrespected.

If you have a counter argument to my claims, please present it.

Again, forbidding women the vote and forbidding the women from joining the military are the two rights that are under discussion. And in @SolarCross‘s argument, one justifies the other.

I am not sure what your argument about “endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life” has to do with that.

Your misunderstood my claims. I think any adult should be free to voluntarily associate with others, but I also believe people should voluntarily choose not to associate as well. Hence, if I have a private army, a woman is free to apply to fight in battle with my army and I am equally free to reject her application on the basis of her sex because I don't want to see women get killed in hand-to-hand combat with men who are biologically more suited to warfare. Both instances are examples of voluntary association.

If you think I EVER argued that a state was justified in limiting voluntary association, even of women, you are grossly mistaken and my earlier posts on this thread claim nothing different even where explaining the psychology of traditionalist societies regarding their norms as they pertain to female participation in certain vocations and activities.

If you have an argument to the contrary of my claims. please present it.

I see the confusion.

@SolarCross and I were discussing historical conditions in western societies and the modern context of non-western societies.

You are discussing a hypothetical situation based on your ideology.

The two contexts are clearly different.

In the historical context, keeping women from voting, joining the military, owning land, etc. were all ways of limiting power to the people who held power at the time.

In your hypothetical context, the same factors do not apply.

Sure, but who on here was defending the rape of women by soliders? This sounds like a strawman.

The fact that I will teach my daughters how to use firearms proficiently and use self-defense against marauder male rapists neither implies feminism on my part nor a desire to see my daughters become conscripts.

I think you have a strange and deluded idea of traditionalism, a chimera of your own making.

I never claimed that you support battle rape. In fact, I assumed the exact opposite and your training of your daughters is a testament to the fact that you do not support battle rape.

War rape is a historical fact. This means that traditionally, the role of women in war is to be a passive bystander who can do little to prevent war rape.

And it seems we agree that teaching women to be proficient in military arts is a way of preventing rape in general.

And this is an argument for why women have wanted to join the military.

I answered your question, I am assuming your own moral system, thus if morality is subjective; whether I agree with your particular claims or not becomes irrelevant, because I have no justification to apply them outside of myself in obligating others; hence making any debate a fruitless and pointless dispute over competing preferences.

If you wish to claim that people "ought" to behave a certain way regarding women, thats fine, so long as its clear that such a claim is an objective and not subjective moral claim and thus evidence of your own inconsistency regarding ethics and moral philosophy.

How so? Please explain.

Thanks

How do you think I define “subjective morality”?

I think you define “objective morality” as “any morality that uses objective facts and/or logic to arrive at moral ideas”.

Because of this, I think that you assume I think that subjective morality is a morality that does not use objective facts or logic at all.

These are not the definitions I use when I say morality is subjective.

By that I mean that morality is purely a human construct that only exists because we are sapient and social beings who evolved to have it.

If I were to use your definitions of objective and subjective morality, I would say that the universe has billions of objective moralities right now, and when the last sapient mind dies in the far future, it will have zero.

]]>2019-04-09T18:22:26+01:002019-04-09T18:22:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998311#p14998311Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not ask about your personal thoughts.

I answered the question adequately, you asked a question that involved voting and conscription, etc. I support neither of these for anyone and so its not a gender specific issue in my mind.

If you thought I believed otherwise, then you misunderstand my views.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are adding weird assumptions to the question.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You apparently think that forbidding adults from doing what they want is morally justifiable.

You think I should allow anyone to do my electrical work so long as they want to, regardless of qualification?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Would it then be morally justifiable to not allow you to have the same rights as others?

Are you saying someone has the right to endanger themselves by breaching someone else's desire to voluntarily disassociate? If not, I don't see what your objection is to my argument and examples.

If I don't want someone who is not qualified to do electrical work to risk electrocution by doing work on my house, even if they "want" to, I don't see how anyone's rights are being violated nor do I see how anyone was being disrespected.

If you have a counter argument to my claims, please present it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You just made an argument about how women should not be allowed to voluntarily associate with others. And then claimed it was a sign of respect.

Your misunderstood my claims. I think any adult should be free to voluntarily associate with others, but I also believe people should voluntarily choose not to associate as well. Hence, if I have a private army, a woman is free to apply to fight in battle with my army and I am equally free to reject her application on the basis of her sex because I don't want to see women get killed in hand-to-hand combat with men who are biologically more suited to warfare. Both instances are examples of voluntary association.

If you think I EVER argued that a state was justified in limiting voluntary association, even of women, you are grossly mistaken and my earlier posts on this thread claim nothing different even where explaining the psychology of traditionalist societies regarding their norms as they pertain to female participation in certain vocations and activities.

If you have an argument to the contrary of my claims. please present it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was not discussing fighting in wars, but instead talking about the fact that women have traditionally been treat3d as spoils of war.

I think treating them as mere objects to be won is less respectful than giving them the skills they need to be free.

Sure, but who on here was defending the rape of women by soliders? This sounds like a strawman.

The fact that I will teach my daughters how to use firearms proficiently and use self-defense against marauder male rapists neither implies feminism on my part nor a desire to see my daughters become conscripts.

I think you have a strange and deluded idea of traditionalism, a chimera of your own making.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please answer the question.

Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?

I answered your question, I am assuming your own moral system, thus if morality is subjective; whether I agree with your particular claims or not becomes irrelevant, because I have no justification to apply them outside of myself in obligating others; hence making any debate a fruitless and pointless dispute over competing preferences.

If you wish to claim that people "ought" to behave a certain way regarding women, thats fine, so long as its clear that such a claim is an objective and not subjective moral claim and thus evidence of your own inconsistency regarding ethics and moral philosophy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you misunderstood my claims.

How so? Please explain.

Thanks.

ALSO;

You have failed to answer my questions and arguments regarding the granting of "rights" to women/feminists as being derived by male concessions and grace and not by any power on the part of women.

Likewise, you have not dealt with the issue of women being objectified by men as being in large part perpetuated by second wave feminism and how the recent attempts at reform within feminism by third and fourth wave feminists (including intersectional muslim women) mimics many patriarchal norms regarding modesty and dress first championed by patriarchal societies (including islam) in the first place which you have claimed were "inherently disrespectful."

]]>2019-04-09T18:02:51+01:002019-04-09T18:02:51+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998308#p14998308Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't think anyone should be voting whether they are allowed to or not because I don't think there should be a state at all.

Silly question.

I did not ask about your personal thoughts.

Please answer the question.

Of course, because endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life.

You are adding weird assumptions to the question.

You apparently think that forbidding adults from doing what they want is morally justifiable.

Would it then be morally justifiable to not allow you to have the same rights as others?

That being said, I don't think any of this is the business of the state, I am for voluntary associations and natural necessity determining these outcomes.

You just made an argument about how women should not be allowed to voluntarily associate with others. And then claimed it was a sign of respect.

Technically, women have fought in wars in certain times and places, but that this is the exception and not the rule is hardly indicative of anything conspiratorial; rather, there were biological and social reasons for this role delineation that transcends the mere caricature of male malevolence towards women.

I was not discussing fighting in wars, but instead talking about the fact that women have traditionally been treat3d as spoils of war.

I think treating them as mere objects to be won is less respectful than giving them the skills they need to be free.

I am saying I have no reason to accept your claims if morality is subjective and relative as you also claim.

Please answer the question.

Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?

That is, I am going to assume your own worldview in dealing with your objections; thus, if morality being relative is coherent, then you should have no problem with me accepting your own system in critiquing your claims regarding what other people "ought to do."

]]>2019-04-09T17:32:30+01:002019-04-09T17:32:30+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998302#p14998302Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, do you think that women should be not allowed to vote because of their traditional exclusion from the military?

I don't think anyone should be voting whether they are allowed to or not because I don't think there should be a state at all.

Silly question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Secondly, do you think that forbidding another adult from doing what they want is respectful?

Of course, because endangering a person intentionally is about as disrespectful as one can possibly be because your are disregarding their safety and very life.

For example, if my friend wanted to do my electrical in my house, but had no experience doing electrical work (was not qualified), I would not allow him to do my electrical work and it would not be out of disrespect, but out of concern of his person. Similarly, not wanting to see women attempt to battle men in the MMA or fight in the front-lines of a bloody battle is not an attitude of disrespect, quite the opposite; I respect their dignity and life, perhaps even more than they do.

That being said, I don't think any of this is the business of the state, I am for voluntary associations and natural necessity determining these outcomes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Third, are you under the mistaken impression that women have not been part of war since time immemorial? They have been, but as victims of slaughter and rape. It seems like it would be more respectful to allow them the chance to defend themselves.

Technically, women have fought in wars in certain times and places, but that this is the exception and not the rule is hardly indicative of anything conspiratorial; rather, there were biological and social reasons for this role delineation that transcends the mere caricature of male malevolence towards women.

Indeed, if women want their rights, let them take them. I hardly see the "rights" of feminists as any kind of achievement when their very granting depended on the concessions and graces of men in power to begin with. If it weren't for men granting women privileges, there would be no feminism.

This is why feminism is not revolutionary, because it is not acquired by women's own efforts via self-defense or insurrection; rather, such is granted only by special pleading and the selfish interests of evil men. After all, for men who hated the chastity of the patriarchal order, supporting feminism was a no-brainer.

There is a reason why the sexual revolution is indistinguishable from second-wave feminism; the results of which have hardly been "respectful" of women (a cursory glace at pornhub would quickly confirm this fact, which only exists today because of the contributions of feminism).

Not coincidentally, feminists of the fourth wave who have "buyer's remorse" for what their forbears unleashed in the sexual revolution have recently added islamic women in hijabs to their cause; the irony of this being well illustrated by this toon:

Perhaps even feminists know that patriarchal societies were more "respectful to women" in some ways, why else would this toon resonate?

I am saying I have no reason to accept your claims if morality is subjective and relative as you also claim.

That is, I am going to assume your own worldview in dealing with your objections; thus, if morality being relative is coherent, then you should have no problem with me accepting your own system in critiquing your claims regarding what other people "ought to do."

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, I will define respect after you do, since you are the one who originally brought it into the discussion.

I also asked you a previous questions regarding the acquisition of power in feminism, please answer it.

Or are you refusing to answer my questions again because you still maintain this homo-erotic and racial fear that I am trying to dominate as your claimed in a previous thread?

]]>2019-04-09T17:03:35+01:002019-04-09T17:03:35+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998295#p14998295Victoribus Spolia wrote:How is it respecting women to allow them into combat situations? Especially when most of the history of combat was brutally physical and success as an individual largely depended on physical attributes for which men have a natural biological advantage? Sending a lamb to slaughter is not respecting the lamb either, just like forcing female MMA fighters to fight a trans-woman is equally barbaric.

First of all, do you think that women should be not allowed to vote because of their traditional exclusion from the military?

Secondly, do you think that forbidding another adult from doing what they want is respectful?

Third, are you under the mistaken impression that women have not been part of war since time immemorial? They have been, but as victims of slaughter and rape. It seems like it would be more respectful to allow them the chance to defend themselves.

Your standard of being respectful needs to be properly defined because it seems like the opposite of respect to me, especially if respect is seen as the elevation of dignity. Furthermore, after you define "respect," please proceed to defend why anyone here should accept your notion of respect as morally objective and binding; especially given your views that morality is purely subjective and relative.

Are my views on morality purely subjective and relative? Is that your claim?

Anyway, I will define respect after you do, since you are the one who originally brought it into the discussion.

]]>2019-04-09T16:58:14+01:002019-04-09T16:58:14+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998293#p14998293Pants-of-dog wrote:Restricting their roles drastically, and then using this as an excuse for disrespectful behaviour towards women, is not an example of respecting women.

How is it respecting women to allow them into combat situations? Especially when most of the history of combat was brutally physical and success as an individual largely depended on physical attributes for which men have a natural biological advantage? Sending a lamb to slaughter is not respecting the lamb either, just like forcing female MMA fighters to fight a trans-woman is equally barbaric.

Your standard of being respectful needs to be properly defined because it seems like the opposite of respect to me, especially if respect is seen as the elevation of dignity. Furthermore, after you define "respect," please proceed to defend why anyone here should accept your notion of respect as morally objective and binding; especially given your views that morality is purely subjective and relative.

]]>2019-04-09T16:45:29+01:002019-04-09T16:45:29+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998289#p14998289SolarCross wrote:You don't understand any of those things so I will spell out the reasons why:

1. Government is a military institution predominantly so the privilege of voting is properly extended to those that directly contribute military duties even actually or potentially. Having the privilege of exemption from military duties quite properly ought to mean the absence of the privilege of political enfranchisement.

And producing every single soldier is part of that. So is nursing.

And both of these roles have traditionally been done by women.

And the easy way to show respect for women in this way would have been to allow them to fight as well.

Restricting their roles drastically, and then using this as an excuse for disrespectful behaviour towards women, is not an example of respecting women.

2. It is not generally true that women were forbidden from owning land at least in Europe but land owners are generally viewed as being particularly liable to military duties and for this reason there is an expectation that males should inherit over females.

I doubt any of this is true.

3. The convention against divorce applied to men also and had to do with maintaining the practice of monogamy.

Why would men want to divorce a person who is forced to clean their house and raise their kids and whom the man can rape at will with impunity?

4. The convention against abortion is simply the understanding that entails the killing of innocent children, the fact that applies disproportionately to females is incidental.

And yet, men killed innocent children all the time as part of their military duties. And men were treated respectfully for this, while the same excuse is used to restrict women’s roles.

]]>2019-04-09T16:47:34+01:002019-04-09T16:37:34+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998288#p14998288Pants-of-dog wrote:Not if you deny women the vote, not let them own land, not let them divorce, force them to carry pregnancies to term, etc.

None of these are signs of respect.

And these things are common in some non-western countries, which is why women in these countries are creating and pushing feminist movements.

You don't understand any of those things so I will spell out the reasons why:

1. Government is a military institution predominantly so the privilege of voting is properly extended to those that directly contribute military duties actually or potentially. Having the privilege of exemption from military duties quite properly ought to mean the absence of the privilege of political enfranchisment.

2. It is not generally true that women were forbidden from owning land at least in Europe but land owners are generally viewed as being particularly liable to military duties and for this reason there is an expectation that males should inherit over females.

3. The convention against divorce applied to men also and had to do with maintaining the practice of monogamy.

4. The convention against abortion is simply the understanding that it entails the killing of innocent children, the fact that it applies disproportionately to females is incidental.

]]>2019-04-09T16:24:21+01:002019-04-09T16:24:21+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998283#p14998283SolarCross wrote:This is basically an ahistorical narrative. It is more generally true to say that men are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for men and women are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for women.

Not if you deny women the vote, not let them own land, not let them divorce, force them to carry pregnancies to term, etc.

None of these are signs of respect.

And these things are common in some non-western countries, which is why women in these countries are creating and pushing feminist movements.

]]>2019-04-09T16:21:36+01:002019-04-09T16:21:36+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998282#p14998282Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as i can tell, @Hong Wu’s argument has been completely demolished, and non-western women are fighting for feminism according to their specific social conditions.

The only women fighting for feminism that I'm aware of are the Kurdish female fighters and the small numbers of front line women in western armies fighting the sick patriarchal misogynistic Muslim terror groups.

]]>2019-04-09T16:19:50+01:002019-04-09T16:19:50+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998281#p14998281Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering the fact that people who did traditional female roles were treated with a lot less respect, it is historically incorrect to argue that forcing women into only traditional female roles is respectful.

This is basically an ahistorical narrative. It is more generally true to say that men are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for men and women are respected for carrying out duties appropriate for women.

]]>2019-04-09T16:13:28+01:002019-04-09T16:13:28+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998278#p14998278Statistics: Posted by Victoribus Spolia — 09 Apr 2019 16:13
]]>2019-04-09T16:08:27+01:002019-04-09T16:08:27+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998275#p14998275Statistics: Posted by Pants-of-dog — 09 Apr 2019 16:08
]]>2019-04-09T16:06:49+01:002019-04-09T16:06:49+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998274#p14998274SolarCross wrote:The real paradox is that "feminists" think that women need to be more like men to get respect, there is a heavy implication there that women are not good enough as they are

Indeed, the implicit assumption was that the traditional male role was superior to that of the traditional role of the woman in patriarchal societies.

What can be more misogynistic than saying that exclusively feminine roles like child-bearing were somehow deficient and inferior in comparison to the male's civic participation or role in violence or manual labor?

Women are as keen to improve their own lot in life as anyone else. So they will want the same respect as men get, and traditional women’s roles are not good enough as they are if the goal is to get the same respect as men.

]]>2019-04-09T16:04:12+01:002019-04-09T15:59:32+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998270#p14998270Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?

I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.

Boom, I just blew your collective minds.

The real paradox is that "feminists" think that women need to be more like men to get respect, there is a heavy implication there that women are not good enough as they are.

There is also the problem that gender equality would result in women losing very valuable privileges for all the privileges they might gain. Legal and conventional exemptions from military duty or any work involving physical hardship and hard labour for example.

]]>2019-04-09T15:41:19+01:002019-04-09T15:41:19+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998269#p14998269Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?

I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.

Boom, I just blew your collective minds.

The problem with this is the assumption that anti-feminists are actually misogynists at all. Its a slur that was used for propoganda purposes that has stuck for some reason (MGTOWs and INCELS are perhaps a recent exception on this, but that is a separate matter).

The truth is, most anti-feminists are some variety of tradcon who actually love women for their distinctive virtues and would like to see those expressed in their fullest sense of traditional motherhood and wifedom. Tradcons and patriarchal types are critical of women being political, going to war, or working alongside men precisely because they believe it cheapens womanhood itself and makes women into an ugly attempt at a photocopy of traditional male roles and thus they view feminism and egalitarianism (by extension) as the eliminating of the "sacred" notion of femininity that those societies have collectively protected and elevated for a millennia.

It is not a coincidence that anti-feminist societies were also the ones most sensitive to the dignity and virtue of women as encased by manners, moral codes, and chivalry. That feminism killed chivalry is really all the evidence you need that it is truly anti-women and misogynistic at its core.

The reason patriarchal types oppose feminism (contrary to your paradox) is because patriarchal types are the exact opposite of misogynists, indeed they are the greatest preservers of femininity as it has been collectively understood by the majority of the human race for several thousand years.

Women are different and these so-called "haters of women" (misogynists) only wish to see femininity protected, elevated, and preserved as distinct from masculinity.

The real amusing thing to me, is the deluded belief of some feminists that men are "threatened" by women taking roles in politics, war, and the workplace. Being threatened has nothing to do with it, after all, the only reason women are able to do any of these things is because men have "allowed" them too in the first place via concessions and political protections.

If all men collectively did not want women to have those "liberated" roles, they could do so by force and there is nothing women could do about it, do you really think women would be able to rise up and take those rights by force from the men? Get real.

Feminism only exists because men have allowed it to happen (usually for selfish, greedy, or lustful reasons), which is an amusing irony that never ceases to entertain my mind.

This is why men shouldn't take loud mouth feminists too seriously, they should be dismissed as the privileged and spoiled little girls they are, only being able to spew their bile because men were gracious enough to concede them such rights in the first place and which could be revoked in an instant by these same men if the collective will were strong enough.

Without a state (operated by men who seek to gain by giving women the "illusion" of power), there could be no feminism or egalitarianism. In a state of nature, traditionalism exists not merely out of a sense of nostalgia (as most conservatives have today regarding patriarchy), but out of pure, natural, necessity.

]]>2019-04-09T13:12:54+01:002019-04-09T13:12:54+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998258#p14998258Men and women are not the same.there are some things that men and women can both do but things like military,police,politics should all be left to menespecially politics. the women who do dominate in politics behave like men because politics require rational and cold thinking and most women are acting out of emotions

Misogynist:- a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The definition does not defeat my point. A person with prejudice should also seek to benefit oneself whenever the prejudice is practiced. If not, which means the person doesn't come out better than the prejudged, then what's the point of it?

]]>2019-04-09T07:07:21+01:002019-04-09T07:07:21+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14998217#p14998217Rancid wrote:If you are a misogynous, and you think that feminism is destroying women..... shouldn't you be pro-feminist?

I call this the Rancid-Misogynist-Feminism paradox.

Boom, I just blew your collective minds.

Misogynous seek to destroy women for the betterment of themselves. Feminism, at least on surface, does not result in the misogynists' betterment.

]]>2019-04-08T16:23:25+01:002019-04-08T16:23:25+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14998050#p14998050I recall Goldwater's quote: "I do not go to Washington to make it more efficient. I go there to make it smaller."

In Arizona and elsewhere neocon state legislatures are passing laws like crazy to limit the power of municipalities and counties. This is a direct liberal(ish) assault on the notion of smaller government and local control; both linchpins of the Goldwater/Buckley conservatism with which I was raised.

Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services.

Neocons see these as nothing more than "pork" for a constituency and take no moral position on them at all though they claim to. Generally they see certain kinds of welfare (such as SNAP for example) as a constituency owned by democrats and other kinds such as farm subsidies as their own.

Today's democratic party under Bill and later Hillary Clinton is probably more classically conservative than is today's mess. (Some irony intended.)

Richard Nixon was the last mostly conservative president as he saw the rise of corporate power as an enemy to conservative values and was not afraid to embrace some more progressive ideas to preserve conservative social values.

]]>2019-04-08T07:29:17+01:002019-04-08T07:29:17+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14997998#p14997998"This silence about the Paleocons was the result, in part, of the abysmal ignorance of the writers of most such articles but also of the hidden purpose that lurked beneath much of what they wrote. That purpose was not so much to "deconstruct" and "expose" the Neocons as to define them as the real Conservative opposition, the legitimate (though deplorable and vicious) "right" against which the polemics and political struggle of the left should be directed. The reason the left prefers the neocon "right" to a paleo alternative is, quite simply, that the neocons are essentially of the left themselves and, thus, provide a fake opposition against which the rest of the left can shadowbox and thereby perpetuate its own political and cultural hegemony unchallenged by any authentic right."

The Conservative's traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American Conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear ... [T]he Neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt. ... They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary. ... Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; Paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. [Neoconservatives] generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won't hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.[6]

In discussing Neoconservatives' distinctive positions on state power, Irving Kristol wrote in 2003:

Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable ... People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional Conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of de Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

]]>2019-04-08T06:53:06+01:002019-04-08T06:53:06+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174381&p=14997994#p14997994And there's the female chief executive in Hong Kong and the female president in Taiwan. They are only criticized for their policies, but gender slurs against them are very rare, if ever. In other words, everybody thinks them to be equals to other (male) leaders, no less.

If you think Feminism didn't kick off in these places, the most valid explanation would be that we are not that misogynous to start with.

]]>2019-04-08T06:31:37+01:002019-04-08T06:31:37+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14997991#p14997991The morally better ones try to conserve the current status quo, or the previous status-quo. I consider myself as such, though I am not necessarily moral.

The worse ones just want to conserve their rear end or the fulfillment of their greed.

Trump is slightly more to the former but after all most of him, and his team as a whole, are no doubt the latter. The same can be said for the current Tories in the UK.

]]>2019-02-20T21:28:31+01:002019-02-20T21:28:31+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989434#p14989434I do not know, but he agrees with my understanding of what I have been taught in the Baptist Church.

Winston Churchill said,"The difference between a politician and a statesman is that the statesman agrees with you".

]]>2019-02-20T21:23:21+01:002019-02-20T21:23:21+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989430#p14989430Drlee wrote:You posted a sermon by some dude named Berry Kercheville. How do you know that he knows more of God's mind than I do? Or the Pope and College of Cardinals? Or the entire leadership of the Methodist Church? Or the entire leadership of the Episcopal Church?

I do not know, but he agrees with my understanding of what I have been taught in the Baptist Church.

Drlee wrote:Do you worship God or Berry Kercheville?

I worship the great God and savior Jesus Christ.Praise and glory to the Lord.

Oh for fuck's sake. Why do you even bother with the Bible, if the New Testament? Did Jesus say not to bother with everything that came before him? No.

Stop being a poe. It's getting old.

From Hebrews 8:7, what was the fault with the first covenant?

Berry Kercheville The Old Law

There certainly was fault with the first covenant, but the fault was not with God or in the way He made the covenant, but with us. Hebrews 8:8 states that He found fault “with them.” The Law showed the way to righteousness (Romans 8:3-4), but righteousness could only be obtained if the Law were kept perfectly (Galatians 3:10). The fault then with the Law was that man could not keep it perfectly in order to obtain righteousness. And since the Law made no provision for the permanent forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 10:1), another covenant had to be brought, sanctified by the blood of Christ, that could provide for our salvation.

@Hindsite The Bible uses lots of metaphors and parables to tell stories, and much of it was not meant to be taken literally... like God making the earth in 6 days(something they probably made up since they didn't have any knowledge about how old things actually were).

Same God, except you'd like to remove all the mystery and take stupid things literally.

]]>2019-02-20T05:02:08+01:002019-02-20T05:02:08+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989264#p14989264Rich wrote:The God that created Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle, could certainly be considered to be somewhat economical with the truth.

Driee believes in a different god that could not create the universe in six literal days as written in holy scripture.

]]>2019-02-19T11:23:44+01:002019-02-19T11:23:44+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989059#p14989059Drlee wrote:So to believe that the world is 7000 years old you have to conclude that God lied to us. That he made creation to deliberately fool us. My God is not a liar.

The God that created Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle, could certainly be considered to be somewhat economical with the truth.

]]>2019-02-19T05:12:34+01:002019-02-19T05:12:34+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989030#p14989030Hindsite wrote:I hope he is a capitalist, but when he responds to me he seems like a crazy liberal and most crazy liberals today are also socialists promoting open borders.

Wrong about ''crazy liberals'' being Socialists, the two are different ideologies, and today's ''conservative'' is yesterday's ''liberal''.

And, real Socialists don't promote ''open borders'', because the immigrants are paid slave wages, and that deprives the working citizen even more of the means of existence, further fattening the Rich.

]]>2019-02-19T04:47:18+01:002019-02-19T04:47:18+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989022#p14989022annatar1914 wrote:Wrong. Drlee is very much a Capitalist, from every conversation I've seen of him online he is very much a believer in private property control. I have tried to show you again and again what Socialism is, and you insist on improperly using that term. Socialism is public control of the means of production in a society, and I am a Socialist, Drlee most emphatically is not a Socialist.

And again, I am a young earth creationist, who believes the cosmos is a little over 7000 years old and was made in six days, and man came from two persons, man and woman made directly by God in His likeness and Image. I don't make a big deal about it because people are emotionally and intellectually invested in what they believe for the most part, and only God can convince.

Tell a man the truth, like I did to you about what Socialism is, and he doubts an hour later and returns to what he thought before.

I hope he is a capitalist, but when he responds to me he seems like a crazy liberal and most crazy liberals today are also socialists promoting open borders.

]]>2019-02-19T04:28:41+01:002019-02-19T04:28:41+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989016#p14989016Hindsite wrote:Drlee is one of those old earth Christian liberal socialist that has been fooled by those atheist who believe in macro-evolution. I am a young earth Christian conservative capitalist.

Wrong. Drlee is very much a Capitalist, from every conversation I've seen of him online he is very much a believer in private property control. I have tried to show you again and again what Socialism is, and you insist on improperly using that term. Socialism is public control of the means of production in a society, and I am a Socialist, Drlee most emphatically is not a Socialist.

And again, I am a young earth creationist, who believes the cosmos is a little over 7000 years old and was made in six days, and man came from two persons, man and woman made directly by God in His likeness and Image. I don't make a big deal about it because people are emotionally and intellectually invested in what they believe for the most part, and only God can convince.

Tell a man the truth, like I did to you about what Socialism is, and he doubts an hour later and returns to what he thought before.

]]>2019-02-19T03:35:51+01:002019-02-19T03:35:51+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14989006#p14989006annatar1914 wrote:@Drlee ,I simply do not agree with anything you've said here, except maybe your sincerity in your idea of Christian beliefs, which sincerity does not seem to mesh well with characterizing those who believe still in a more traditional idea of salvation history, the age of the cosmos, and disbelief in the theory of evolution (which was the majority position of Christians universally from the earliest times), as being ''idiots'' and ''morons''.

Is that what you think of me, for example?

I 'll extend to you the charity you have not extended to me so far, and rather than get into a quarrel with a fellow Christian, I'd prefer to let the matter drop.

Drlee is one of those old earth Christian liberal socialist that has been fooled by those atheist who believe in macro-evolution. I am a young earth Christian conservative capitalist.

I didn't say you needed to, I said that you didn't. I was making the point that civil discussions are the most rational ones, and generally I've been civil to you in the past on this forum. I don't agree with a great deal of what you say, nor you with what I say, but we tend to be civil. I don't think you're a bad person, and I prefer to talk to people with a little fire in their belly, some passion, anyways.

Where I was talking about how as a person with a Christian worldview, It may surprise some people when I say that in Creation, there is only Matter, and all creatures are composed of Matter in some form. That makes me a Christian ''Materialist'', and you very much misunderstood me, as if I was speaking in praise of the beliefs of these goddamned tv preacher evangelicals with their ''health and wealth prosperity gospel'' bullshit.

, but here you go:

Sorry.

No problem, lol...

Yes. That is correct.

See? We can agree on some things, and a lover of reason and logic is by no means an enemy of mine.

The former.

I disagree, except... That I should probably expand my remarks to say that I believe that De-Evolution is the process generally at work in the Cosmos today and in the past, in a dialectical conflict with Progress/Evolution, which is Teleological and will be the process at work in the future.

My ''conservatism'' is not the ''conservatism'' of most ''conservatives'', but I do believe in absolutes and eternal principles.

Bottom line is, this isn't the thread I want to discuss this about on. You'll find I'm probably a more ''profound'' a critic of so-called Conservatism than you realize. I mean, I'm a Christian Communist for God's sake!

The world is not only 7000 years old. I am a Christian and believe the entire idea is idiotic. Here is why.

We have solid scientific evidence that it is much older than that. We have irrefutable evidence that people have been around vastly longer than that.

So to believe that the world is 7000 years old you have to conclude that God lied to us. That he made creation to deliberately fool us. My God is not a liar.

There is absolutely nothing about believing that the universe is 13.8 billion years old that in any way diminishes Jesus' message. That the Bible, which was written my men and edited by people with a particular political view. contains allegory and analogy is indisputable. To take the Bible literally diminishes the majesty and power of God.

But we Christians have to put up with the morons who try to sell us Clement of Alexandria's (et al) calculations.

I simply do not agree with anything you've said here, except maybe your sincerity in your idea of Christian beliefs, which sincerity does not seem to mesh well with characterizing those who believe still in a more traditional idea of salvation history, the age of the cosmos, and disbelief in the theory of evolution (which was the majority position of Christians universally from the earliest times), as being ''idiots'' and ''morons''.

Is that what you think of me, for example?

I 'll extend to you the charity you have not extended to me so far, and rather than get into a quarrel with a fellow Christian, I'd prefer to let the matter drop.

]]>2019-02-18T06:06:36+01:002019-02-18T06:06:36+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14988807#p14988807We have solid scientific evidence that it is much older than that. We have irrefutable evidence that people have been around vastly longer than that.

So to believe that the world is 7000 years old you have to conclude that God lied to us. That he made creation to deliberately fool us. My God is not a liar.

There is absolutely nothing about believing that the universe is 13.8 billion years old that in any way diminishes Jesus' message. That the Bible, which was written my men and edited by people with a particular political view. contains allegory and analogy is indisputable. To take the Bible literally diminishes the majesty and power of God.

But we Christians have to put up with the morons who try to sell us Clement of Alexandria's (et al) calculations.

annatar1914 wrote:''Scientific Method'' is using testable and repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis about an object of inquiry.

Yes. That is correct.

annatar1914 wrote:Is the macro-evolution of species something capable of being tested in a lab under testable and repeatable circumstances, or is there a set of assumptions there that are based on faith in something prior to testing?

]]>2019-02-18T05:32:30+01:002019-02-18T05:32:30+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14988802#p14988802Godstud wrote:You're right. Scientific Method is all belief based!!! How could I have been so wrong to be led to think that the world was over 7,000 years old and that it wasn't flat???

Yes, with the whole Hulk Hogan meme thing going on there, you're the apex of rational modern thought.

Note too that you posited a strawman there with that ''flat earth'' business....I'm discussing evolution with HindSite, not ''flat earth''. Yes, really rational and logical. Like when I posted a thread about ''materialism'' and you assumed I was talking about quite another materialism than what you thought. Never did get an apology from you on that.

''Scientific Method'' is using testable and repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis about an object of inquiry. Is the macro-evolution of species something capable of being tested in a lab under testable and repeatable circumstances, or is there a set of assumptions there that are based on faith in something prior to testing?

Funny how triggered you get, at something i'm not even trying to convince you of, but are simply stating to another person who likewise has a similar belief in common.

]]>2019-02-18T05:18:50+01:002019-02-18T05:18:50+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14988798#p14988798annatar1914 wrote:But since you're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway, I guess we'll just have to experience who was right and who was wrong someday. You're right. Scientific Method is all belief based!!! How could I have been so wrong to be led to think that the world was over 7,000 years old and that it wasn't flat???

Yeah, I figured with all your surplus of ''rational thought'' simply running out your ears you'd be the first to snipe with all the dignity and intellectual acumen as you usually muster.

It was science and rational thought that led me away from the racist Darwinian theory of evolution, based on a veritable religion of modernist secularism that it is, not towards it. But since you're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway, I guess we'll just have to experience who was right and who was wrong someday. That's the best way to test something anyway.

]]>2019-02-18T03:43:26+01:002019-02-18T03:43:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14988783#p14988783annatar1914 wrote:I believe that the human race is descended from two persons, Adam and Eve, a little over 7000 years ago. In my opinion to think otherwise is what is racist, along with the whole theory of Darwinian Evolution, once you understand the anthropological ramifications of the theory.

]]>2019-02-17T00:03:26+01:002019-02-17T00:03:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14988608#p14988608Hindsite wrote:I am sure you don't need any example of me being called racist.

I believe that the human race is descended from two persons, Adam and Eve, a little over 7000 years ago. In my opinion to think otherwise is what is racist, along with the whole theory of Darwinian Evolution, once you understand the anthropological ramifications of the theory.

]]>2019-02-02T07:25:15+01:002019-02-02T07:25:15+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14985161#p14985161Pants-of-dog wrote:I am still waiting for @SolarCross to cite an example of him being called racist by someone on PoFo.

]]>2019-02-01T23:51:31+01:002019-02-01T23:51:31+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14985075#p14985075SolarCross wrote:Of course the forum's rule 2 would filter out those instances. I can definitely recall being called a "fascist" many times, I think the implication of that label is "racist" rather than "totalitarian" because the accuser using that term is usually a totalitarian themselves.

]]>2019-02-01T22:46:01+01:002019-02-01T22:46:01+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14985052#p14985052Pants-of-dog wrote:Using search, I cannot find any instances of you being called racist.

I think people like to play the victim card, and claim that they have been called racist, in order to deflect the discussion.

Of course the forum's rule 2 would filter out those instances. I can definitely recall being called a "fascist" many times, I think the implication of that label is "racist" rather than "totalitarian" because the accuser using that term is usually a totalitarian themselves.

]]>2019-02-01T22:40:56+01:002019-02-01T22:40:56+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14985050#p14985050SolarCross wrote:I am way too lazy and easy going to catalogue every instance of being slandered on pofo.

Do you think I am not a racist?

Using search, I cannot find any instances of you being called racist.

I think people like to play the victim card, and claim that they have been called racist, in order to deflect the discussion.

]]>2019-02-01T20:36:57+01:002019-02-01T20:36:57+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14985010#p14985010Pants-of-dog wrote:I am still waiting for @SolarCross to cite an example of him being called racist by someone on PoFo.

I am way too lazy and easy going to catalogue every instance of being slandered on pofo.

]]>2019-02-01T19:38:53+01:002019-02-01T19:38:53+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984999#p14984999Statistics: Posted by Pants-of-dog — 01 Feb 2019 18:38
]]>2019-02-01T19:23:22+01:002019-02-01T19:23:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984994#p14984994Godstud wrote:@One Degree Thank you, Racist. I am against racism. I guess you embrace it. SAD. I thought it was limited to the stupid and uneducated.

The races of the world evolved naturally in separate locations. It is not unnatural for some people to have their culture so tied to race that they appear racist to you. Still today in most of the world race and culture are so intermingled for it to be normal for people to confuse the two. Those most confused are Western liberals as they seem totally incapable of seeing the difference.

]]>2019-02-01T05:31:00+01:002019-02-01T05:31:00+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984881#p14984881Godstud wrote:Seeing as I don't make racist statements, I have no need to prove I am not one, when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

If you find the label so "vile", then STOP MAKING RACIST FUCKING STATEMENTS! It's that fucking easy... to someone who isn't a racist, that is. Racists always manage to say stupid shit, as racism is based in ignorance and poor education.

One Degree wrote:I have repeatedly challenged you to post one of these ‘racist’ posts of mine and you never have.

No, this is the first time, and I have already done so in the past. I am not poring over hundreds of your horrid moronic posts to find the examples of your racism. You even contesting the definition of racism is an example of it. I am not the only one to have noticed this, either.

One Degree wrote:Why don’t you try proving you are not racist? Try it and maybe you will understand how vile your attacks are.

Seeing as I don't make racist statements, I have no need to prove I am not one, when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

If you find the label so "vile", then STOP MAKING RACIST FUCKING STATEMENTS! It's that fucking easy... to someone who isn't a racist, that is. Racists always manage to say stupid shit, as racism is based in ignorance and poor education.

]]>2019-01-31T19:08:27+01:002019-01-31T19:08:27+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984799#p14984799Godstud wrote::lol: They are only baseless accusations if you ignore facts, and the things you have said. You even deny the definition of racism because it applies so aptly, to you. You're a man who has posted numerous racist statements. That's simply a fact you like to deny.

No one on Pofo, who doesn't make racist statements, gets called racist. That's a fact. You make up a childish argument to deny your racism.

Admit it and try to be better. Don't continue to say racist things. and no one will call you a racist. I am not going to hunt down every racist statement you've made, either, to prove the point. It's simply not necessary.

Your trolling is tiresome. I have repeatedly challenged you to post one of these ‘racist’ posts of mine and you never have. You just accept your imagination as reality. Why don’t you try proving you are not racist? Try it and maybe you will understand how vile your attacks are.

]]>2019-01-31T19:02:00+01:002019-01-31T19:02:00+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984797#p14984797 They are only baseless accusations if you ignore facts, and the things you have said. You even deny the definition of racism because it applies so aptly, to you. You're a man who has posted numerous racist statements. That's simply a fact you like to deny.

No one on Pofo, who doesn't make racist statements, gets called racist. That's a fact. You make up a childish argument to deny your racism.

Admit it and try to be better. Don't continue to say racist things. and no one will call you a racist. I am not going to hunt down every racist statement you've made, either, to prove the point. It's simply not necessary.

]]>2019-01-31T18:43:43+01:002019-01-31T18:43:43+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984794#p14984794Godstud wrote:You don't have to believe in the "imaginary group" if you are demonstrating racism against it.

No. You have particular attention towards particular ones. You have demonstrated this numerous times.

No, the statements you make that are racist are evidence of this.

I understand you quite well, and you have shown yourself to be racist, in what you say, on numerous occasions.

Nice try, @One Degree, but your belief that you aren't racist, is not borne out by what you say. Believe what you will, but you've been called racist because you've said racist shit, and for no other reason than that.

SOS. 5 baseless accusations without a single meaningful comment. It is a waste of time trying to convince people their ‘knowledge’ is ignorance. I wonder what allows some to understand this and others to live their whole lives in delusions of self righteousness?

]]>2019-01-31T18:38:00+01:002019-01-31T18:38:00+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984792#p14984792One Degree wrote:You don’t find it contradictory calling someone a racist who doesn’t believe in your ‘imaginary groups’? You don't have to believe in the "imaginary group" if you are demonstrating racism against it.

One Degree wrote:I have a long history of posts objecting to all ‘groups’.

No. You have particular attention towards particular ones. You have demonstrated this numerous times.

One Degree wrote:Your inability to understand what I am actually saying is not evidence of any racism on my part.

No, the statements you make that are racist are evidence of this.

One Degree wrote:It is simply your inability to understand me.

I understand you quite well, and you have shown yourself to be racist, in what you say, on numerous occasions.

Nice try, @One Degree, but your belief that you aren't racist, is not borne out by what you say. Believe what you will, but you've been called racist because you've said racist shit, and for no other reason than that.

]]>2019-01-31T16:16:39+01:002019-01-31T16:16:39+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984759#p14984759Godstud wrote:My argument of what racism is, is based on the definition, which you fail to acknowledge, or even comprehend, properly.

That's because you don't want to acknowledge that you are often spouting racist bullshit, so you try to spin it around on the people calling you for what you're saying. It's a sad but not uncommon failing amongst people who say racist things.

You don’t find it contradictory calling someone a racist who doesn’t believe in your ‘imaginary groups’? I have a long history of posts objecting to all ‘groups’. Your inability to understand what I am actually saying is not evidence of any racism on my part. It is simply your inability to understand me.

]]>2019-01-31T15:12:36+01:002019-01-31T15:12:36+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984749#p14984749One Degree wrote:If your arguments are based upon stereotypes then you are being racist (actually bigoted).My argument of what racism is, is based on the definition, which you fail to acknowledge, or even comprehend, properly.

One Degree wrote:I don’t see many innocents, especially among those calling people racists.

That's because you don't want to acknowledge that you are often spouting racist bullshit, so you try to spin it around on the people calling you for what you're saying. It's a sad but not uncommon failing amongst people who say racist things.

]]>2019-01-31T14:40:38+01:002019-01-31T14:40:38+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984746#p14984746 I don’t see many innocents, especially among those calling people racists.

]]>2019-01-31T13:17:47+01:002019-01-31T13:17:47+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984722#p14984722Statistics: Posted by Godstud — 31 Jan 2019 12:17
]]>2019-01-31T08:24:41+01:002019-01-31T08:24:41+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984694#p14984694Godstud wrote::roll: No. When someone calls you racist, it's because you are saying racist shit. No one has called Solarcross racist, because he isn't saying racist bullshit.

Don't look at others for fault when you should be looking hard in a mirror.

]]>2019-01-31T07:58:25+01:002019-01-31T07:58:25+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174429&p=14984688#p14984688Hindsite wrote:When the Left call you racist, it really means you are better than they are. No. When someone calls you racist, it's because you are saying racist shit. No one has called Solarcross racist, because he isn't saying racist bullshit.

Don't look at others for fault when you should be looking hard in a mirror.